Oh, the things I could have done with this premise…
Cat People, starring Nastassja Kinski, is billed as ‘erotic horror’. It’s anything but. This is a film set in hot and steamy New Orleans, with sex and naked people and big cats, and naked people having sex, and sexy big cats, and some nifty violence, and it’s as flat as the bayou but lifeless. Utterly without resonance or soul. I’m honestly not sure how the filmmakers managed that.
Actually, a lot of films from the late 70s and early 80s are hollow as gourds, but I don’t know why. Anyone got an explanation?
Nicola Griffith 
First, it's hard to beat Val Lewton. Second, the answer to your last question has to be disco music.
chadao, no disco music in this one, just moody electronic music. But sound is definitely part of the flatness.
Weirdly, they also seem to have great David Bowie songs on their soundtracks…
And yeah – WOW was Cat People bad. And The Hunger.
colleen, but it was fun seeing David Bowie stuck in a box!
I think it was just the flavour of the era: all style and no substance.
I think it was a lot of unacknowledged sexism. All I really remember of the film was the last image – a man, having tamed, caged actually, this wild creature (woman), was now able to contain her, even scratch her under the chin, filling him with a sense of power over and therefore safety from her spirit. The flatness experienced is a way to step away from the horror being portrayed.
deakat, I'm wondering if the 80s were a transitional period, between the auteurship of the 70s and the sensation-driven mass appeal of the later 80s. I've never really thought a lot about film and its history. I suppose I should go read a book about it.
anon@11:38, the majority of film is drenched in sexism, absolutely sodden with it. I don't doubt that this film's sexism played a part in my lack of engagement, but it's more than that. It's something to do with the filmic technique that I can't put my finger on.
Oh wow, you know I've had this movie for months (mostly for annette o'toole) but just haven't been able to bring myself to watch it yet. I actually got it along with the 70's version of the Stepford Wives which I also have yet to see as I want to do them as a double feature.
Somebody else mentioned The Hunger, oh what that movie could have been. . . but yes, a lot of the films from the 70's and 80's were hollow without a doubt. It was certainly part of a transition, breaking away from the old Hollywood traditions as filmmakers searched for a new way to tell stories while studios looked for a way to make even more movies than before.
It was also a transitional period for the country, coming out of the 60’s where the Vietnam war began and moving into the vapid over indulgence of the 70’s when the war ended and the country had to cope with the cultural changes brought about by the civil rights movement. Followed then by the heightened commercialism of the 80’s.
There are rapid changes of views on just about everything from sex and womens rights, to race and wardrobe. That search of identity can be seen in the films of that period. As a result there was a lot of bad that came out during that time period, yet at the same time there are a lot of gems.
You have 2001: A Space Odyssey right before the dawn of the 70’s, The Vampire Lovers (1970), The Godfather (1972) (I actually don’t like that series but most people find it worth mentioning), The Exorcist (1973), Badlands (1973) which came on TV last night. Followed by Carrie (1976), okay so I’m a Sissy Spacek fan. Not to mention Taxi Driver that same year. Dog Day Afternoon (1975).
Oh yeah, and Star Wars (1977) and Alien (1979).
The 80’s brought us great films as well, such as Airplane! (1980), Terminator (1984), Labyrinth (1986) (come on, I had to mention a GOOD Bowie film), and the 2 and a half good Indiana Jones films. Oh and who doesn’t love the John Hughes films like Breakfast Club and Sixteen Candles!?!
But to be fair, lets look with a wider view, hollow-soulless films completely lacking in worth are still made today. In fact, they have never stopped being made. You can see most of them on SyFy.
transceptor, sometimes I don't want to be fair :) But I'm less interested in the cultural forces that lead to these films than I am in the filmic techniques–cinematography? lighting? camera angles? color correction? sound design? I mostly don't know the right terms–that make for such emotional inertia.
Well if you are looking for technique, then that is more of a study of film itself. I can recommend the films:
The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover. This is a fantastic film to watch for set and costume design and their relationship with storytelling. There is one scene in particular when Helen Mirren’s character is walking from the hallway into the restroom. You see both the hall and the restroom in a split screen and as she transitions her clothing changes from warm colours that balanced it with the hallway to the stark black and white of the restroom where she begins her affair.
Solaris (2002), by Soderbergh is a great study in story telling through cinematography. He does a fantastic job in showing disconnection and lonely isolation in both what he chooses to shoot and how he shoots it.
Stigmata (1999) by Rupert Wainwright, is a good study in the use of film development technique to help show the difference between the worlds of the two protagonists. For the scenes shot in the city the film wasn’t fully developed, so it had sharp blues and even bits of silver remained on the film giving it a very harsh and cold look.
Alien is good to view in terms of seeing how set and colour can convey a very claustrophobic atmosphere by alternating between exterior shots of the vastness of space and those of the narrow rooms of the ship.
What I’ve noticed is that in a lot of 70’s films what you get are wide shots of people on a stationary camera. It’s easy for shots like that to end up feeling very static, particularly if the performances are a bit monotone. There is such a huge difference in a scene when you have someone moving from lets say a kitchen table to a counter top when viewed on a wide angle stationary shot, than seeing that same scene using a steady cam and following that character performing the exact same movement.
It’s the difference between cooking wine and drinking wine.
You should see Bravo’s 100 scariest movie moments, they talk a lot about how certain aspects of filmmaking. Anyone interested in film could learn a lot from watching that.
transceptor, I'll pay attention to that stationary- vs. steadicam thing. Thanks.